Case Summary (G.R. No. 249196)
Key Dates
The RTC's Joint Decision was rendered on March 12, 2013, and was affirmed by the CA on March 27, 2015. The final ruling of the Supreme Court occurred on June 25, 2018.
Applicable Law
The ruling is based on the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, specifically Sections 5 (sale of dangerous drugs), 12 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia), and 15 (use of dangerous drugs) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Factual Antecedents
The accused-appellant was charged with three separate Informations for illegal sale, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, and illegal use of prohibited drugs. On January 5, 2012, he was alleged to have sold 0.051 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer, PO2 Jojie Navero, while also being found in possession of various drug paraphernalia and testing positive for drug use.
Version of the Prosecution
Police operatives conducted a surveillance operation leading to the execution of a buy-bust operation, during which the accused-appellant was apprehended. The prosecution's evidence included testimonies from the arresting officers delineating the sequence of events from the buy-bust operation to the chemical examination that confirmed the substance as shabu.
Version of the Defense
The accused-appellant denied the allegations, asserting he was unlawfully arrested by police officers who planted evidence against him, including the confiscated drugs and paraphernalia. He claimed that his confession was coerced under threat from police officials.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC convicted the accused-appellant on all counts, holding that the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale and possession of drugs and paraphernalia. The accused-appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the sale of shabu, along with fines and rehabilitation penalties for the other charges.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA upheld the RTC’s decision, agreeing with the prosecution's established elements of the crime, including the positive identification of the accused by the poseur-buyer and the integrity of the evidence presented.
Issues on Appeal
The primary issue was whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's convictions for all the charges. The Supreme Court's evaluation focused on the sufficiency of evidence regarding the charges of illegal sale and use of drugs, as well as the possession of drug paraphernalia.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA and RTC decisions regard
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 249196)
Case Citation
- G.R. No. 223515
- Decision Date: June 25, 2018
- Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the Philippines
Overview
- The appeal involves the conviction of Francis Taboy y Aquino for multiple drug-related offenses.
- The lower courts found him guilty under Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) for illegal sale, possession of drug paraphernalia, and use of dangerous drugs.
Factual Antecedents
- Criminal Charges: Accused-appellant faced three separate Informations:
- Criminal Case No. 12-01: Illegal sale of shabu on January 5, 2012.
- Criminal Case No. 12-60: Illegal possession of drug paraphernalia on the same date.
- Criminal Case No. 12-61: Illegal use of dangerous drugs on the same date.
- Incident Details:
- Date and Time: January 5, 2012 at approximately 3:45 PM.
- Location: Camiling, Tarlac.
- Buy-Bust Operation: Conducted by police officers with an informant.
- Transaction: Accused-appellant sold one heat-sealed sachet of shabu for P500.00 to poseur buyer PO2 Jojie Navero.
- Arrest: Accused-appellant attempted to flee on a motorcycle but was apprehended by the police.
Version of the Prosecution
- Surveillance: Conducted prior to the buy-bust operation.
- Execution of Buy-Bust:
- PO2 Navero engaged in a transaction with accused-appellant.
- The marked money was exchanged for the sachet of suspected shabu.
- Evidence Collection:
- Items recovered included drug paraphernalia: an aluminum foil, a plastic sachet, and lighters.
- Items were marked and documented in the presence of the accused-appellant and Barangay Captain.
Version of the Defense
- Accused-appellant's Denial: Claimed no buy-bust operation occurred.
- Narrative:
- Alleged he was taken ag